Panasonic GH7

[MrSMW]

Some times, some things, have a certain kind of magic.

You can’t always quite determine or define why, but it exists.

It’s usually a sum of it’s parts that combines to more than something else/less.

If you can see it and feel it, even if those around you do not, it exists.

Anyway, GH7 colour science…

It does look quite different to the GH6.

If…IF, I was to move back to M4/3 for video, I was thinking to help keep the costs down, to pair a GH6 (because they are fairly ‘affordable’ used now) with a GH7 but nah, could not be bothered dealing with that difference.

Though possibly could tweak the hue & sat in camera to make them match and then, SOOC, they would be as close as you would not notice.

[kye]

6 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

There is no magical "medium format look" that is common to all medium format camera/lens combinations (or even a decent subset of them).

Please look through this thread and show me where this was stated.

[kye]

2 hours ago, MrSMW said:

Some times, some things, have a certain kind of magic.

You can’t always quite determine or define why, but it exists.

It’s usually a sum of it’s parts that combines to more than something else/less.

If you can see it and feel it, even if those around you do not, it exists.

Anyway, GH7 colour science…

It does look quite different to the GH6.

If…IF, I was to move back to M4/3 for video, I was thinking to help keep the costs down, to pair a GH6 (because they are fairly ‘affordable’ used now) with a GH7 but nah, could not be bothered dealing with that difference.

Though possibly could tweak the hue & sat in camera to make them match and then, SOOC, they would be as close as you would not notice.

I wonder if you got the LogC profile for each, if maybe those would match between GH6 and GH7.  Paying for the profiles might be worthwhile if it matched them SOOC.

[PannySVHS]

4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

Things don't need to be uncontroversial to not be or become "imaginary"... : D Other than that, well, who can deny it? Imaginary stuff is what pictures are made of, isn't it? LOL : )

 

This paragraph! It would be so magical if I only understood what you meant. Sometimes you make my head feel heavy, very heavy!😂 @Emanuel I hope you don't mind me whimsically smiling with a tear of joy in my eye.:)

[zlfan]

about lf or mf look, my personal experience on some historical photos by lf 8x10 technical cameras are much more elegant than those taken by modern phone or crop sensor cameras, on the same scene, buildings, streets, landscape. at first, I did not know why those historical photos are so grandiose, now I think large format contributes to it, also the camera movements help. 

[kye]

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh.

No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it.

I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.

[eatstoomuchjam]

4 hours ago, kye said:

Please look through this thread and show me where this was stated.

Repeatedly by multiple people.  References to "the medium format look" are, in fact, how this discussion started.  It didn't metastasize from out of nowhere.

3 hours ago, zlfan said:

also the camera movements help.

Camera movements are not unique to any format.  They are just more common on larger formats where they are useful for restoring some depth of field.  Tilt-shift lenses exist for smaller formats, giving some of the more commonly used camera movements.  Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I can easily mount a smaller format camera on the back of a 4x5 and have access to the full movements of that camera.

Plus there are numerous medium and large format cameras that supported extremely limited (or no) movements.

3 hours ago, kye said:

No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it.

Glad to talk about creativity and aesthetics, but that can be done without resorting to the use of phony useless phrases which cannot be defined and which have different meanings to just about everybody participating in the discussion.

[eatstoomuchjam]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

All part of the look.

The look of the Fuji GFX system?  Sure, but that's not common to all medium format.  The 110/2 wouldn't even come close to covering a 6x9cm negative (doubt it would even cover 6x4.5cm).  If excellent lenses are part of the look, I have an old Schneider Angulon 47mm somewhere around here that would defy any suggestion that every lens made for medium format is excellent.  Like the Angulon 47mm?  How about the meniscus lenses in old Kodak box cameras?  They're medium format and kind of terrible (sometimes in a charming way).  Or something like an old Duaflex?  I ran some film through one of them once.  Looked pretty different to what I get from my Mamiya 7 which, in turn, looks pretty different to what I used to get from my RB67 which didn't look that much like what I used to get from my Fuji GSW 690 III.

8 hours ago, mercer said:

Can you prove it doesn't exist?

Perhaps your style of photography doesn't lend to the look, so you haven't been able to adequately capture it?

It's easy.  Go anywhere where you can search user images by a format (flickr used to be good for this, not sure about now).  Look up every image taken between a 6x4.5cm and 6x17cm camera of every type.  Is there any common thing that makes all of those images look the same?  I can save you the time.  There isn't.

If there is a medium format look and I am capturing images on 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12, and 6x17cm film, there shouldn't be anything about my style that would prevent me from capturing it.  We're talking about something described as "medium format look."  It's hard to get more "medium format" than a 6x7cm or 6x9cm negative.

[John Matthews]

4 hours ago, kye said:

I must admit, this thread really makes me laugh.

No wonder there are no creative or aesthetic discussions here - not only do people not want to talk about it but they refuse to believe these things even exist, and if they don't believe in it then they will shout down anyone that even mentions it.

I've been spending my time more and more elsewhere and I can tell you, there are places where people discuss aesthetics, creativity, productivity, and try and help each other out and encourage each other.

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous.

This might sound crazy, but usually have better discussion about aesthetics, creativity and productivity with ChatGPT. Sure, it can be predictable sometimes, but I seem to always learn something and it can point me in the right direction. When talking to humans, it would seem there are always games being played: Trolling, Sock Puppetry, Brigading, Flame Wars, Sealioning, Astroturfing, Gaslighting, Spamming, Doxxing, Dogpiling, Shitposting, and Griefing. With ChatGPT, you never have the feeling you might lose something and true discussion can actually happen. I know, it's a sad state of affairs, but that's life on the internet. Fortunately, there are people don't do any of those things.

[eatstoomuchjam]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous.

FWIW, I've been arguing exactly the opposite of that.  There is no special look intrinsic to larger sensors.  😃

[mercer]

2 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous.

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages.

Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well.

Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit...

Probably a little of both.

But there's still a medium format look.

[mercer]

So... the GH7... yeah... a pretty cool camera...

[mercer]

To add, in this instance, the GH7, a smaller sensor camera, has a few major advantages over any larger sensor camera in its price range... internal ProRes Raw and ProRes HQ, 32bit float audio, a LogC curve, probably the best IBIS, and the best tilting/articulating LCD mechanism that I have ever used.

[Emanuel]

25 minutes ago, mercer said:

Obviously, I must take the blame for this since it was my comment that started this off topic discussion. But my original comment wasn't meant to say that smaller sensors were inferior, just that larger sensors have some advantages.

Sometimes those advantages can make comparisons slightly unfair. As I have already stated, my original comment was intended to give the GH7 some leeway in a video where it didn't fare so well.

Everything I stated after that was probably an exercise in futility where I didn't speak eloquently enough or I was full of shit...

Probably a little of both.

But there's still a medium format look.

Funny the way you ended your post... LOL ; ) Just a matter to give names to the things. I took sides because one doesn't invalidate the other :- )

[John Matthews]

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

[zlfan]

4 hours ago, eatstoomuchjam said:

Repeatedly by multiple people.  References to "the medium format look" are, in fact, how this discussion started.  It didn't metastasize from out of nowhere.

Camera movements are not unique to any format.  They are just more common on larger formats where they are useful for restoring some depth of field.  Tilt-shift lenses exist for smaller formats, giving some of the more commonly used camera movements.  Otherwise, as previously mentioned, I can easily mount a smaller format camera on the back of a 4x5 and have access to the full movements of that camera.

Plus there are numerous medium and large format cameras that supported extremely limited (or no) movements.

Glad to talk about creativity and aesthetics, but that can be done without resorting to the use of phony useless phrases which cannot be defined and which have different meanings to just about everybody participating in the discussion.

lf twich is not available to the p/s lenses. also p/s lenses can only go to +-8mm, ,y mire ef to m43 p/s adapter can go to +-11mm, lf technical cameras can go much greater ranges.

you talked about film look on lf mf, you are right in the photo world, a lot of choice. but Hollywood movies almost exclusively use Kodak vision 50d 250d, 200t 500t. so film look on movies is very defined. r1mx etc are tuned for this film look. 

I have looked adapting DSLR or mirrorless on lf before. the main thing is you have to have the latest rodenstock lenses, which is about $5000 for one. kind of defeating the purpose using lf with its ample vintage lenses. 

[mercer]

1 hour ago, John Matthews said:

I just had a look at my GH6 footage that I took before selling it and I must say it looked great! It has a super organic feel to it and loved the colors in just Standard profile. I also tried shooting in Vlog quite a bit, but Standard really did it for me. I took it to the French Alps last summer and it performed so well for photos and video. Sure, it didn't have PDAF, but when you learn to work around it, it's really no big deal. Honestly, I hope to have a similar opportunity with the GH7.

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite.

I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

[John Matthews]

25 minutes ago, mercer said:

B&H had a remarkable deal on Open Box GH6 starting last spring and it lasted until late this winter. I bought one last spring for $1299 and it was brand new. B&H does that some times... I guess they're clearing out inventory. Stupid me, I returned it. I was going to buy it again if it dropped to $1099. Over the holidays it went down to $1199 but I didn't bite.

I had one of those deals in France. It was just too good to pass up in November of 2022. When you wait and buy, you usually don't end up losing that much when you sell it back. However, what happens when you love the look of the camera?

26 minutes ago, mercer said:

I really liked the CineLikeD and the monochrome profiles. VLOG was good, but I was trying to lean on the DR Boost which created some pretty harsh chroma noise in the shadows. At first, I hadn't noticed it until @BTM_Pixpointed it out to me and then I couldn't unsee it. I was so stoked about the DR Boost concept of the camera that I stupidly got annoyed with the cam as a whole. Now I am regretting it big time because although the GH7 is vastly better, I don't really want to pay the extra money for it. BTM also recommended the cheap Meike 25mm lens and it was a treat to use with that cam and I've always wanted to test out the Pan/Leica 15mm 1.7. If I can find a deal on a GH6, I may bite. Great camera otherwise! If not, I'll wait to see if the GH7 drops a little by the holidays.

With the GH7, it looks as though Panasonic has addressed EVERY problem there was with the GH6 with the exception of a chunky body, but many people like that too. The image is 98% of the image of the S5ii (with the right lens), but you have that screen which is so much better than the flip-out only screen on the S5ii- it's a major usability issue. Also, there's the high frame rates. I currently have the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, a prefect lens for that body... we'll see in November. I will probably dump the idea though if a M43 small camera comes along because I'm still a believer in keeping the format relatively small and that is not the GH7.

[zlfan]

3 hours ago, John Matthews said:

I had one of those deals in France. It was just too good to pass up in November of 2022. When you wait and buy, you usually don't end up losing that much when you sell it back. However, what happens when you love the look of the camera?

With the GH7, it looks as though Panasonic has addressed EVERY problem there was with the GH6 with the exception of a chunky body, but many people like that too. The image is 98% of the image of the S5ii (with the right lens), but you have that screen which is so much better than the flip-out only screen on the S5ii- it's a major usability issue. Also, there's the high frame rates. I currently have the Olympus 17mm f/1.2, a prefect lens for that body... we'll see in November. I will probably dump the idea though if a M43 small camera comes along because I'm still a believer in keeping the format relatively small and that is not the GH7.

I guess eventually you may accumulate several m43 bodies, gh7, chunky yet robust pro body, something like em10 v, small body with interchangeable lens mount, even smaller m43 body with integrated f1.4 prime lens, like Sony rx1. probably each format will have these several layers. 

[IronFilm]

14 hours ago, John Matthews said:

Granted the title of the thread is "Panasonic GH7". However, invariably with any camera release that is not full frame, the discussion goes only to sensor size and how inferior the sensor is because it's not FF. It's quite ludicrous.

I agree! It's quite frustrating. 

Why can't people just accept each format for what it is?? 

Heck, if we saw a BMPCC 2.0 released which has an even smaller sensor than the GH7, I would still be excited about that. 

And we shouldn't be hating upon it specifically for the S16 sized sensor. 

Sure, we might complain about the lack of modern day affordable S16 cine lenses! That we could use on the BMPCC 2.0

But that's a totally different question to complaining about the S16 sensor size itself.